Rel: August 21, 2026
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2026
SC-2025-0958
Mobile Investments, LLC, and The Broadway Group, LLC
v.
Corporate Pharmacy Services, Inc.
Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court
(CV-20-900608)
COOK, Justice.
A previous appeal involving the same parties arose out of a default
judgment that was entered against the defendants Mobile Investments,
SC-2025-0958
LLC, and The Broadway Group, LLC ("TBG"), by the Etowah Circuit
Court as a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), Ala. R. Civ. P., after the
defendants repeatedly failed to comply with multiple discovery requests
and orders in a property dispute with Corporate Pharmacy Services, Inc.
("CPS"). Mobile Investments and TBG appealed that decision to our
Court, and we affirmed the trial court's judgment. See Mobile Invs., LLC
v. Corporate Pharm. Servs., Inc., 415 So. 3d 1018 (Ala. 2024).
Mobile Investments and TBG thereafter filed a Rule 60(b)(4), Ala.
R. Civ. P., motion, requesting that the trial court set aside the default
judgment as void on the basis that they had been denied due process. The
trial court issued an order stating that there was no basis for setting
aside the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(4), but it noted that filings
since the entry of that judgment had raised questions that, it believed,
would allow it to grant limited relief from that judgment under Rule
60(b)(6).
Following the trial court's observation, Mobile Investments and
TBG amended their Rule 60(b) motion. In that amended motion, Mobile
Investments and TBG reiterated their Rule 60(b)(4) arguments but
added additional arguments for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
2
SC-2025-0958
Their amended motion was subsequently denied in major part by
the trial court. However, in its order, the trial court made clear that there
were still issues pertinent to the disposition of the case that had yet to be
resolved. Before the trial court could resolve those issues, Mobile
Investments and TBG appealed to this Court. As explained below,
because their appeal is not taken from a final judgment, it must be
dismissed.
Facts and Procedural History
I. Events Giving Rise to the Underlying Case
In 1995, William King agreed to lease his property on Broad Street
in Gadsden to CPS ("the Broad Street property"). Under the parties' lease
agreement, King agreed to lease that property to CPS for a one-year term,
with the option for CPS to renew the lease "for five (5) successive years
following the initial one (1) year term." The lease agreement also
contained a provision that gave CPS the option to purchase the Broad
Street property from King if King ever attempted to sell it. Although the
lease agreement specifically covered only six years, CPS remained in
possession of the Broad Street property until 2005, at which point, CPS
contends, King executed a handwritten note that extended the term of
3
SC-2025-0958
the lease indefinitely.
King died in 2018. In 2019, King's estate sold the Broad Street
property to Mobile Investments. Shortly thereafter, CPS discovered that
King's estate had sold the Broad Street property to Mobile Investments
when Mobile Investments informed CPS that CPS was leasing the Broad
Street property on a month-to-month basis; according to CPS, it was also
informed that TBG was its "new landlord." When CPS contacted Mobile
Investments and TBG regarding its right of first refusal and demanded
that it be allowed to exercise that option, Mobile Investments and TBG
refused.
Consequently, on October 22, 2020, CPS commenced the present
action against Mobile Investments and TBG. In its complaint, CPS
alleged that Mobile Investments and TBG had breached the terms of the
original lease agreement between CPS and King and sought specific
performance of the lease agreement's option-to-purchase provision.
Mobile Investments and TBG moved to dismiss CPS's claims
against them, but that motion was denied. They then filed their answer
to CPS's complaint, and the parties proceeded to engage in discovery.
Following CPS's filing of motions for sanctions based on Mobile
4
SC-2025-0958
Investments and TBG's failure to participate in discovery and the trial
court's entry of numerous discovery orders that went ignored, the trial
court entered a default judgment in favor of CPS on August 11, 2023. The
trial court found that CPS was entitled to purchase the Broad Street
property for $110,000, the same price paid by Mobile Investments. The
trial court's order contained a legal description of the Broad Street
property that was to be conveyed upon CPS's payment of the $110,000
sale price to the Etowah circuit clerk. On September 8, 2023, Mobile
Investments and TBG filed, under Rule 55, Ala. R. Civ. P., a motion for
relief from the default judgment, which was denied by operation of law.
II. Mobile Investments and TBG's First Appeal to This Court
On February 23, 2024, Mobile Investments and TBG appealed the
trial court's judgment to this Court, arguing that the trial court had
abused its discretion by entering a default judgment against them
because, they said, their former attorney (1) did not tell them about the
trial court's four orders compelling them to respond to discovery and (2)
did not explain to their corporate representative the consequences of not
complying with the trial court's orders compelling his deposition. Our
Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on September 13, 2024. See
5
SC-2025-0958
Mobile Invs., LLC v. Corporate Pharm. Servs., Inc., 415 So. 3d 1018 (Ala.
2024).
Following our Court's decision, on October 3, 2024, CPS filed its
notice of payment of $110,000 to the Etowah circuit clerk for the purchase
of the Broad Street property pursuant to the trial court's August 11, 2023,
order. It also asked the trial court to issue an order formally divesting
Mobile Investments and TBG of title to the Broad Street property
consistent with its August 11, 2023, order.
In their response to CPS's notice and request, Mobile Investments
and TBG asked the trial court not to enter an order divesting it of title to
the Broad Street property as described in CPS's motion because, they
said, the legal description of the Broad Street property provided by CPS
for use in the clerks' deed contained an error. According to Mobile
Investments and TBG, while the 2019 warranty deed from King's estate
conveyed the properties identified by the street addresses of both 319 and
317 Broad Street, only 319 Broad Street was ever subject to CPS's lease
with King. They maintained that the building at 317 Broad Street was
leased to a different entity altogether and that it should not be included
in the deed vesting title to the Broad Street property in CPS because it
6
SC-2025-0958
was never leased by it.
It does not appear that the trial court took any action on either
filing at that time.
III. Mobile Investments and TBG's Subsequent Rule 60(b)(4), Ala.
R. Civ. P., and Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., Motions
Then, on November 11, 2024, Mobile Investments and TBG filed a
Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion in which they asked the trial court
set aside its August 11, 2023, default judgment as void on the basis that
they had been denied due process. They also argued that there was no
evidence presented that could have supported that judgment.
A little more than two weeks later, the trial court issued an order
stating that there was no basis for setting aside the default judgment but
noting that filings since the entry of its default judgment raised questions
as to the correct legal description of the Broad Street property. Although
it did not believe that Rule 60(b)(4) was applicable, the trial court
observed that Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., was available to allow it to
grant limited relief from its August 11, 2023, judgment to ensure that it
did not vest CPS with title to more property than was required.
On December 20, 2024, Mobile Investments and TBG filed their
amended Rule 60(b) motion, adding Rule 60(b)(6) as a ground for why
7
SC-2025-0958
they were entitled to relief from the default judgment entered against
them. In their amended motion, they reasserted that the trial court's
default judgment was void on due-process grounds.
On December 21, 2024, the trial court issued an order setting the
amended motion for a hearing on February 3, 2025. A few days later, CPS
filed a notice with the trial court in which it indicated that it had obtained
a new survey and legal description of both properties on Broad Street. It
attached copies of both to its notice. Those documents indicated that CPS
occupies only .13 acre on the westerly side, which, CPS noted, constituted
61.9% of those properties.
In advance of the February 3, 2025, hearing, the trial court issued
an order in which it stated that, if it were to determine that the survey
and legal description submitted by CPS is accurate, it would then enter
an order consistent with that information and would "order disbursement
by the Clerk of the Court to [Mobile Investments] of the sum of
$67,090.00 (61.9% of the $110,000 paid by [CPS] into the Court), and
return the sum of $42,910.00 (the remaining 38.1% of the $110,000) to
[CPS]." The trial court noted, however, that, if it were to decide to grant
Mobile Investments and TBG's amended motion in its entirety, it would
8
SC-2025-0958
order the entire $110,000 would be paid back to CPS.
Because CPS would be entitled to "$42,910" in either scenario, the
trial court stated that it would order the circuit clerk to return that
amount to CPS if it did not receive an objection from Mobile Investments
and TBG within seven days of its order. Following the filing of a motion
by CPS and a notice of no objection by Mobile Investments and TBG, the
trial court directed the circuit clerk to disburse "$42,910" to CPS and to
hold the remainder of the funds pending disposition of Mobile
Investments and TBG's amended Rule 60(b) motion.
IV. The Hearing on Mobile Investments and TBG's Amended Rule
60(b) Motion and the Trial Court's Subsequent Ruling
The hearing scheduled for February 3, 2025, was rescheduled for
April 17, 2025. During that hearing, the trial court heard arguments from
all the parties as to why Mobile Investments and TBG were or were not
entitled to relief under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6).
On December 2, 2025, the trial court issued a lengthy, detailed
order denying Mobile Investments and TBG's amended Rule 60(b) motion
in large part.1 In that same order, the trial court made clear that it was
1It is unclear why it took so long for the trial court to issue this order
after the April 17, 2025, hearing. The case-action-summary in the record
9
SC-2025-0958
reserving its ruling on the proper legal description of the Broad Street
property and the correct corresponding purchase price until a follow-up
hearing could be held on December 17, 2025, to resolve those two
remaining issues. Specifically, the trial court's order stated:
"Hearing is set on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 1:30
p.m., on the following remaining issues necessary for
disposition of this case, … (a). confirmation of the correct legal
description to be utilized in the order by which title to the
subject property is vested in [CPS]; and (b). confirmation of
the correction corresponding purchase price to be paid to
Defendant Mobile Investments, LLC."
(Some emphasis in original; some emphasis added.) However, before the
December 17, 2025, hearing could take place, Mobile Investments and
TBG filed the current appeal.
Standard of Review
We review a denial of relief under Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P., de
novo. See Allsopp v. Bolding, 86 So. 3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2011). We review a
ruling on a Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion for whether the trial
court exceeded its discretion. See Osborn v. Roche, 813 So. 2d 811, 815
shows that, on May 19, 2025, CPS and Mobile Investments and TBG each
filed a "post-hearing summation of [their] Rule 60(b) motions." After that, the next filing is a motion by Mobile Investments and TBG asking the
trial court to rule on their amended Rule 60(b) motion.
10
SC-2025-0958
(Ala. 2001).
Discussion
On appeal, Mobile Investments and TBG challenge the trial court's
denial of their amended Rule 60(b) motion. However, CPS argues that,
before we can consider the merits of Mobile Investments and TBG's
arguments, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction over
the current appeal because, it asserts, at present there is no final
judgment.
It is well settled that, for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, an
appeal must be from a final judgment or from a judgment certified as
final under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. See Foster v. Greer & Sons, Inc.,
446 So. 2d 605, 609-10 (Ala. 1984). A final judgment is one that
"conclusively determines the issues before the court and ascertains and
declares the rights of the parties involved." Bean v. Craig, 557 So. 2d
1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). In general, a final judgment "is one that puts an
end to the proceedings between the parties ... and leaves nothing further
for adjudication." Ex parte Wharfhouse Rest. & Oyster Bar, Inc., 796 So.
2d 316, 320 (Ala. 2001).
In its December 2, 2025, order denying Mobile Investments and
11
SC-2025-0958
TBG's amended Rule 60(b) motion, the trial court expressly stated that
it was scheduling a separate hearing for December 17, 2025, "on the
following remaining issues necessary for disposition of this case, … (a).
confirmation of the correct legal description to be utilized in the order by
which title to the subject property is vested in [CPS]; and (b).
confirmation of the correct corresponding purchase price to be paid to
Defendant Mobile Investments, LLC." The very title of that order was:
"ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' RULE 60(B)(4) MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANTS' RULE
60(B)(6) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT EXCEPT FOR
SPECIFIED LIMITED RELIEF TO BE GRANTED, AND SETTING
HEARING ON SUCH LIMITED RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT."
(Capitalization in original).
However, the record indicates that, before it could hold that
hearing, on December 11, 2025, Mobile Investments and TBG filed the
current appeal with this Court challenging the trial court's denial of their
amended Rule 60(b) motion. They also filed with this Court an emergency
motion to stay the hearing scheduled for December 17, 2025.
On December 16, 2025, Mobile Investments and TBG filed with the
12
SC-2025-0958
trial court an emergency motion to stay, asking that court to hold off on
doing anything further until this Court resolved their appeal. That same
day, the trial court issued an order continuing the hearing on the two
issues identified in its December 2, 2025, order. However, it indicated
that it would, instead, hold a hearing on December 17, 2025, to consider
Mobile Investments and TBG's corresponding motion to stay.2
During that hearing, a discussion arose as to whether the order that
Mobile Investments and TBG were appealing -- the trial court's
December 2, 2025, order denying their amended Rule 60(b) motion -- was
a final judgment. The trial court indicated that it believed that that order
was an "interlocutory order" because it "contemplate[d] further
proceedings." The trial court reasoned that additional "things have to be
determined to have a final order." Following that hearing, the trial court
issued an order that reflected its concerns on the finality issue.
On December 18, 2025, our clerk's office issued a "Show Cause
Order," asking Mobile Investments and TBG to explain whether the trial
court's order denying their amended Rule 60(b) motion was a final
2That ruling rendered the emergency motion filed with this Court
moot, and our clerk's office issued an order stating the same.
13
SC-2025-0958
judgment. In response, Mobile Investments and TBG offered three
reasons for why the order was final.
First, they pointed out that this Court previously had accepted their
earlier appeal from the August 11, 2023, default judgment and the
subsequent order denying their motion to set aside that judgment under
Rule 55, Ala. R. Civ. P. Thus, they argued, the same judgment and the
subsequent order denying their amended Rule 60(b) motion were
likewise final and capable of supporting this appeal. Second, they argued
that none of the enforcement language contained in the trial court's order
denying their amended Rule 60(b) motion pertained to, enhanced, or
affected the August 11, 2023, judgment.
Both of these arguments are unpersuasive. The finality of the
earlier judgment is simply irrelevant to the finality of the order ruling on
their amended Rule 60(b) motion. Importantly, Mobile Investments and
TBG do not cite any caselaw to support such a proposition.
Finally, they argued that caselaw regarding sale-for-division
actions is analogous to the case at hand because they both involve a
request for specific performance resulting in a court order directing the
transfer of property from one party to another, thus, they say, further
14
SC-2025-0958
confirming that they are appealing from a final judgment. However, this
is not a sale-for-division action. More importantly, we cannot ignore the
fact that the record indicates -- and the trial court acknowledges -- that
there are "issues before the [trial] court," Bean, 557 So. 2d at 1253, that
have not been resolved. Rather, those issues -- the legal description of the
Broad street property and the purchase price -- remain pending. As a
result, the proceedings between the parties have not been "put[ to] an
end." Ex parte Wharfhouse Rest. & Oyster Bar, Inc., 796 So. 2d at 320.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the present appeal, and it
must be dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, McCool, and
Parker, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., concurs in the result.
15